Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Why Learn-By-Use skill systems are Nonsensical and Dumb

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,185
Location
Bjørgvin
Learn by use worked fine in games like Dungeon Master and Darklands. But these are single player games, and only the same people who will grind easy XP for hours on end will jump up and down hours on end just to increase the Athletics skill, for example.
Multi-player games are of course another thing, since these games tend to reward encourage destructive gameplay anyway.

Personally I think it's a good thing that not every game has the same skills system, magic system etc. Any of the main systems (XP vs learn-by-use, Vancian magic vs mana pool, TB vs RT vs RTwP) work if done right. And any system can be "abused" by gamers who are more concerned about treating the game as a spreadsheet than a game.
 
Last edited:

Krivol

Magister
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
1,952
Location
Potatoland aka Prussia
I'm playing Morrowind right now, so... I hate level-by-use system - it breaks your eager to do every little quest on the world becouse there is no reason to - pathetic 100 gold for bringing some clothes to someone is just a waste of time. In Gothic I would kill for any 5 exp points.

Argument that "you pick 10 locks and improve in shooting" is stupid - leveling is an abstractive thing, you are solider, by lockpicking you gain experience in world not by using a stick in a hole but by exploring, checking, fiding etc - and you are solider, so you improve in shooting. From the other side JA2 system is great - you gain levels by getting exp points (interruptions, seeing enemies etc) and skills by using skills. Great thing.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,185
Location
Bjørgvin
Morrowind's system sucks because it mixes learn-by-use with a level system, meaning you need to pick rarely used skills as main skills in order to avoid becoming lvl 20 mainly from fending off Cliffracers.
 

Krivol

Magister
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
1,952
Location
Potatoland aka Prussia
Not an issue - this game is just too easy, level should be capped at 20 IMO and still you can abuse enchanting. People who get azura star to create most powerfull weapon ever should be asked - why? Dagoth Ur is killable in 3-4 blows of daerdric katana IIRC.
 

sser

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,866,662
I liked it in JA2, but that game has a very long campaign (or it can, anyway). It was fun seeing Ira go from a liberal waif into a real soldier humping it through swamps and shit after spending the previous weeks alongside some rough SOBs.
 

Keye_

Educated
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
78
I agree that learn-by-use systems aren't good. It not only makes little sense, but in many games it creates great imbalances and is not fun.

I always liked the Gothic-style leveling systems. You earn xp by doing a variety of things. XP and levels grant you skill points. And with these skillpoints you can go to teachers who will intruct. Training sword-fighting with the militia capitain makes more sense to me than killing 500 wolves to get better at fighting.
 

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
Spontaneous Learning: A rare few people do learn things on their own - lets call them inventors. Inventors create whole new things out of thin air. Essentially, they do increase their skill by use.
"Practice makes perfect" is usually the basic principle governing learn-by-use systems. While this does vary depending on the system and the particular skill at hand, a better comparison would probably be something like a professional athlete, especially when it comes to physical tasks like swinging a sword or dodging enemy attacks. Of course, even athletes usually have coaches or other experts at their disposal to help them improve their skill set, but a big part of their improvement does come through repetition and independent training.

One common problem with learn-by-use systems is that they include skills that can be used without a fear of failure, which makes them prone to abuse and encourages grinding. In Morrowind your preferred method of moving is often bunnyhopping since it increases your Acrobatics skill, something that you'll never sufficiently improve through "natural" gameplay. On the other hand the combat skills tend to work notably better: if your Archery skill is at 13, you won't be able to hit anything with a bow and will just waste your arrows, and the most sensible thing is to find a trainer and pay him or her to teach you the basics until you're good enough to consistently improve your skill on your own. In Oblivion and Skyrim this aspect is lost, as every attack contributes to a skill increase since there's no risk of failure involved (i.e. you can't miss), meaning that you can easily grind yourself from total novice to at least journeyman levels in a couple of hours.

Also: DraQ
 

Darkzone

Arcane
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
2,323
Only two examples exists for "learn by use" done right: Wasteland 1, JA2.
 

ColCol

Arcane
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
1,731
This is nonsense. I became a master swordsman by swinging my sword a hundred times each day.
 

Whiny-Butthurt-Liberal

Guest
Biggest reason why "learn by use" is nonsensical and unrealistic: in real life, half the time you learn by failing at doing something as well as succeeding, in different ways, depending on what skill we're talking about and how it's applied.

In video games: hit fence-post twenty million times in exactly the same way = master swordsman.
 

anvi

Prophet
Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
7,530
Location
Kelethin
I don't really care what is realistic or not, at least in fantasy worlds where you have people flying around on dragons and shooting fireballs, making sense doesn't really seem to matter to me. All I care about is that it is fun and well designed, and I don't care what system someone chooses for their game, as long as it is good.

EverQuest has a learn by use system, but it is only a minor thing, it also has levels which are the main thing. At level 50 you could have level 1 in swimming, piercing weapons, divination, conjuration, and whatever else. But you could still kill a level 50 enemy because you have powerful level 50 spells that use alteration or something else. You would just fail if you tried to cast invisibility etc. And you can improve all these skills by working on them. To me this is good and works well and I liked it.

But take Oblivion, that has learn by use, and I hated how it worked. I played as a mage type and early in the game, enemies would charge at me and rip me a new butthole. I would be running backwards squirting out crappy firebolts that was hardly doing anything to the enemies. I played the game for a long time like this and could mostly get by, but it was an annoying chore a lot of the time. I was struggling with a lot of fights, and it wasn't that the combat was hard, or deep, or challenging, or anything good... it was just a simple case that my spells were weak and the enemies were strong. It also doubly sucked because in that dumb game there was no way to control the enemies. So I couldn't snare them, or fear them, or kite them in any way. I only had a few dumb spells and had to make do. So I went to make my dinner and I wedged something in my keyboard and left my character shooting his firebolt into a wall. I came back half an hour later and my character was now a god. And I could pew pew a few firebolts and enemies would just die all over the place. That is one of the worst games I ever played.
 

Darkzone

Arcane
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
2,323
Biggest reason why "learn by use" is nonsensical and unrealistic: in real life, half the time you learn by failing at doing something as well as succeeding, in different ways, depending on what skill we're talking about and how it's applied.
Correct the stimuli is for the reinforment is on a failed attempt nearly as high as on a success. But a constant failure may lead to an lowering of the stimuli.

In video games: hit fence-post twenty million times in exactly the same way = master swordsman.
Yes and that is why professional fighters, like boxers, hit the sand sack over and over again. They do this because it strengthens their muscles and bone and over time they can hit faster and harder. Minor reactions and subtle changes cannot be displayed in an computer game.
 

Grampy_Bone

Arcane
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
3,640
Location
Wandering the world randomly in search of maps
-The more you do anything the better you get at it

-The rate and effectiveness of this varies by person

-Some people are fucking dumb.

Often the difference between people who learn on their own and those who need to be taught is insurmountable. Furthermore, people who seem to learn through teaching often actually don't learn at all. They use "lack of training" to cover up their stupidity and get out of doing hard tasks. Others make cheat-sheets and create instruction manuals for themselves. I've seen these people; imagine getting into a car and having notes everywhere that say "Key goes in here." "Push this to go" "Push to stop" etc.

I am fine with skill ceilings--you can only learn so much about certain subjects before you need some proper instruction. But in general, yeah, doing something repeatedly causes you to get better at it.

Most games just aren't that granular. If you want a hyper in-depth system for your game with learning tiers, self-teaching mechanisms, skill ceilings, training levels, instructors, etc. fine. Go nuts. But learn-by-doing is good enough for most games. There are many unexceptional people in the world who learn just enough to get by in their daily lives; most videogame characters do not fall into this category. Generally you are playing an exceptional person who possesses exceptional learning abilities.
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
Learn by use worked fine in games like Dungeon Master and Darklands. But these are single player games, and only the same people who will grind easy XP for hours on end will jump up and down hours on end just to increase the Athletics skill, for example.

Darklands had also a learn by expert / teacher component and some skills were nearly impossible to raise without them and some demand extreme autism (riding).
 

Longshanks

Augur
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
897
Location
Australia.
I don't buy your "it's not realistic" argument. Learn by use (master by practise may be a better term) is a fair enough abstraction of real skill development. Sure, you take some instruction but to truly master anything takes time and, yes, repetition. I don't become a world class swimmer by asking Michael Phelps how it's done.

So your wrong on that irrelevant point. Who cares if it works as an abstraction of real world learning though, does it work as a game system? The answer is mostly not, but I don't think it's inherently trash. What kills it is 1) tiny, tiny increments. These are awesome for the addiction feedback loop needed for MMOs, but destroy the excitement of advancement in a single player game. 2) use a "skill" anywhere to improve. I jump in one spot a billion times and now I'm an Olympic high jumper. Tracking the way the player handles situations and handing out advancement points based on this is a better way of doing it. Sill not sure I like it, but it can definitely be better than the usual implementation.
 

Mastermind

Cognito Elite Material
Patron
Bethestard
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
21,144
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
1) Learn-by-use takes the basic rpg premise of the rat pressing the little lever and sometimes getting a treat that is the rpg level-up system, and turns it into to a much more visceral and constant pleasure. With learn-by-use, the player can hammer on the little lever of a single skill and get little treats of skill increases on a regular basis, instead of having to wait for those mass treats from a level increase. Hammer, hammer = +1 treat. Hammer, hammer, hammer = +1 treat. Etc.

I think it's the opposite, I get no pleasure from learn by use like I do when I gain a level and the skill points I distribute make me feel like a kid on Christmas morning. It's the difference between eating a good burger when you're hungry and being chained to a conveyor belt having fried meat constantly dropped into your mouth, which is held open by mechanical arms.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom